Paynter v. State of NY

• Decision Date: 14 November 2000
• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Parties: AMBER PAYNTER et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,<BR>v.<BR>STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants.

187 Misc.2d 227

720 N.Y.S.2d 712

AMBER PAYNTER et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,

v.STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants.

November 14, 2000.

Trevett, Lenweaver & Salzer, P. C. (James C. Gocker of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General (Jane A. Conrad of counsel), for State of New York and others, defendants.

Harris Beach & Wilcox, L. L. P. (Daniel J. Moore of counsel), for Avon Central Schools and others, defendants.

Harter, Secrest & Emery, L. L. P. (Carol E. Heckman of counsel), for Rochester City School District, defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

JOHN J. ARK, J.

Preamble

One cannot overstate either the disturbing circumstance of the Rochester City School District or its pivotal importance to our community. Without a vital education system, the City of Rochester withers and our county is very much diminished. However, the court's role is neither to set nor change education policy, but to remedy, where necessary and possible, deprived constitutional or statutory rights. Accordingly, the court will address two issues. First, have the plaintiffs articulated a violated constitutional or statutory right? And if so, can the court fashion a remedy?

Statement of Facts

Plaintiffs, a group of disadvantaged and minority students in the Rochester City School District (hereinafter RCSD), filed this proposed class action in September 1998 on behalf of the 37,000 students in the RCSD against the State of New York, various State agencies and officers (hereinafter collectively the State), claiming that the combination of poverty and racial isolation in the RCSD makes it impossible for students in that district to receive a sound basic education as required under article XI, § 1 of the New York State Constitution (hereinafter the Education Article). The action also seeks a declaration that the inferior education provided to minority students in the RCSD violates the State Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC § 2000d), and the regulations implementing title VI.

A synopsis of the plaintiffs' allegations follows.

Based almost exclusively on data provided by the State, by virtually every measure of educational outcomes, RCSD students fall far below students in the other school districts in Monroe County, and are, by any standard, inadequate.

Approximately 90% of RCSD students are poor, as measured by their eligibility for Federal free and reduced price lunch programs. The percentage of poor students in the other school districts in the county is approximately 16%. The inadequacy and disparity in educational outcomes are due largely to the very high concentration of poor students in the RCSD, as compared to the concentration of poor students in the other Monroe County school districts.

The RCSD's high poverty concentration is highly correlated with the concentration of racial minorities. African-Americans and Latinos comprise approximately 80% of the students within the RCSD. By contrast, African-American and Latino students comprise only 9% of the students in the other school districts in the county.

Study after study have concluded that high poverty concentration is the leading cause of inadequate educational achievement.

For years, the State has been fully aware of the increasingly high concentration of poor students in the RCSD and that a high concentration of poor students in schools almost always causes severely depressed, inadequate levels of academic achievement. Despite this awareness, and in the face of its State constitutional obligation to ensure that RCSD students receive a sound basic education, the State has failed to take any meaningful steps to remedy the increasingly high concentration of poor students in the RCSD. Nor has the State taken any other meaningful steps to ameliorate the effects that high concentrations of poor students have on student performance. These failings by the State deprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional right to the sound basic education provided to students in all the other school districts in the county.

It is not only the State's failure to remedy the concentration of poor students in the RCSD and its effect on students' performance that deprives them of a sound basic education, but also that the State has enacted and enforced specific policies and practices that have directly caused the concentration of poor students in the RCSD. Among these policies and practices are State school district residency requirements and tuition payment requirements for RCSD students who might want to attend public schools outside the City of Rochester. These actions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution (art I, § 11) and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Defendant's laws, policies and practices, which force plaintiffs to remain in RCSD schools with high poverty concentration, have an adverse discriminatory impact on African-American and Latino students, thereby violating plaintiffs' rights under the United States Department of Education's regulations implementing title VI (34 CFR 100.3 [b] [2]), which prohibit State laws, policies and practices that have an adverse discriminatory impact.

In Paynter v State of New York (270 AD2d 819 [4th Dept]), the Appellate Division directed the plaintiffs to join as defendants the school districts located wholly or partly in Monroe County. The second amended complaint, served in April 2000, is the first pleading in this case naming as defendants the RCSD and the suburban school districts in Monroe County and it merely reiterates the initial allegations in the case. It requests injunctive relief against the State and an order that they develop a plan to remedy the educational deficiencies and legal violations described in the second amended complaint.

Discussion

Necessary Parties

"Because this action threatens the very existence of the school districts as they are presently constituted, administered and funded, the school districts are parties `who might be inequitably affected by a judgment' and `who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded' (CPLR 1001 [a])" (Paynter, supra, at 820), the Appellate Division has determined, and this court must follow, that the RCSD and suburban school districts are necessary parties. Accordingly, the plaintiffs named the RCSD and suburban school districts as additional defendants in the caption of the second amended complaint, but expressly state in paragraph 33 on page 5, "Plaintiffs assert no claims against any of these school districts."

Similarly, in the prayer for relief, the second amended complaint seeks no remedies against the RCSD or any other school district (see, CPLR 3017 [c]; 3013). With no allegations against them, the RCSC and suburban school districts' motions to dismiss the case against them are granted (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; 3013; Kramer v Loeb, Rhoades & Co., 20 AD2d 634). Furthermore, even though this is a State and not a Federal equal protection claim, since there are no allegations of any wrongdoing by them, let alone interdistrict violations, there can be no interdistrict remedy (see, Milliken v Bradley, 418 US 717; Missouri v Jenkins, 515 US 70).

Education Article

The seminal cases Board of Educ., Levittown Union Free School Dist. v Nyquist (57 NY2d 27 [hereinafter Levittown]), Reform Educ. Fin. Inequities Today v Cuomo (86 NY2d 279 [hereinafter R.E.F.I.T.]), and Campaign For Fiscal Equity v State of New York (86 NY2d 307 [hereinafter C.F.E.]) hold:

"That [the Education] Article requires the State to offer all children the opportunity of a sound basic education * * * Such an education should consist of the basic literacy, calculating, and verbal skills necessary to enable children to eventually function productively as civic participants capable of voting and serving on a jury. If the physical facilities and pedagogical services and resources made available under the present system are adequate to provide children with the opportunity to obtain these essential skills, the State will have satisfied its constitutional obligation." (C.F.E., at 316.)

In Paynter (supra), plaintiffs claim their poor academic performance, and resulting less than a sound basic education, are caused not by disparities in overall funding or inadequacies in physical facilities and pedagogical services but by the State's role in fostering, and subsequent failing to address, racial and economic isolation between the RCSD and the other Monroe County public schools. Plaintiffs maintain that under the Education Article, district-wide educational outcomes are the touchstone for ascertaining a constitutional violation. Plaintiffs allege that consistent with C.F.E. (supra) a claim under the Education Article is stated when one alleges substandard academic performance in a given district and can point to a systematic cause for that performance. Citing outcome statistics of poor academic performances and high drop-out rates, the plaintiffs demand that the State correct the educational failure imposed by poverty concentration and racial isolation.

Contrariwise, the State, asking for a literal application of C.F.E. (supra), maintains that poor academic outcomes alone are insufficient to establish a claim under the Education Article. Since the plaintiffs have not alleged that inputs, i.e., "minimally acceptable educational services and facilities," are not being provided in the RCSD, the State asserts the plaintiffs have failed to state a constitutional claim. The State further maintains that as long as "a sound basic education" is being made available to students, a constitutional violation of the Education Article cannot be established by outcome statistics alone.

Satisfaction of the State's education obligation by providing "adequate physical facilities and pedagogical services and resources" is understandable in the education financing context of Levittown and C.F.E. (supra)...